BurningBeard wrote: I guess it's designed to make themselves look good to the fans, but honestly, why would the players want to play 82 games at this point?

The players want to play an 82 game schedule because then they get their full salary.

There will be no way to get all the games in past that point so they start losing real dollars if a new CBA is not in place by then.

You don't think a few of them take issue with playing that compacted schedule? Take the pay cut to play less, especially if it means a better CBA agreement? At least, maybe that's the way Fehr pitches it... I guess the question is which side benefits more from a full 82 game season.

I wonder if Chris Chelios is off somewhere wondering how come the deal brokered by Trevor Linden looks so good right now. Linden was correct when he said that the deal would be better for the players in the long run.

I am finding it amusing but also annoying how so many people view these negotiations as being that the owners have given up so much and that the players don't add anything. First off the players are the show. No one pays to watch an owner sit at his seat. Secondly this current CBA was viewed by many as a total capitulation by the players and Bettman was thumping it's merits as saving the league with cost certainty. Don't forget they forced the players to accept a 24% rollback on their wages. Now the little dictator wants them to roll back again and people are accussing the players of not giving anything in the negotiations? Sit out the year boys, keep together and tell the owners that you have lost all faith in Bettman's credibility and want to deal with someone else.

I haven't watched a full CFL game in years but the Lions are looking pretty good this year and my son tells me his favourite team (the Vikings) are doing fantastic at the start of the season. I think I'll start to watch and see if I can rekindle the love I used to have for football.

If nothing else there are two big elections coming up and the supposed removal of the PST should be interesting to watch. I read both papers cover to cover each day (the actual paper editions not the computerized crap) and watch the evening and afternoon news reports. So there is a lot to be interested in other than hockey, even though it is my first love.

Canuck-One wrote:I wonder if Chris Chelios is off somewhere wondering how come the deal brokered by Trevor Linden looks so good right now. Linden was correct when he said that the deal would be better for the players in the long run.

I am finding it amusing but also annoying how so many people view these negotiations as being that the owners have given up so much and that the players don't add anything. First off the players are the show. No one pays to watch an owner sit at his seat. Secondly this current CBA was viewed by many as a total capitulation by the players and Bettman was thumping it's merits as saving the league with cost certainty. Don't forget they forced the players to accept a 24% rollback on their wages. Now the little dictator wants them to roll back again and people are accussing the players of not giving anything in the negotiations? Sit out the year boys, keep together and tell the owners that you have lost all faith in Bettman's credibility and want to deal with someone else.

I haven't watched a full CFL game in years but the Lions are looking pretty good this year and my son tells me his favourite team (the Vikings) are doing fantastic at the start of the season. I think I'll start to watch and see if I can rekindle the love I used to have for football.

If nothing else there are two big elections coming up and the supposed removal of the PST should be interesting to watch. I read both papers cover to cover each day (the actual paper editions not the computerized crap) and watch the evening and afternoon news reports. So there is a lot to be interested in other than hockey, even though it is my first love.

Mondi wrote:All of this is going precisely as could have been predicted...

No talks, posturing. Fans on side of players as owners were asking for the moon.

No talks, posturing.

Talks about nothing of substance. Fans and media (Canadian hockey media) get impatient.

Owners come out of left field with offer. Offer seems reasonable.

Canadian hockey media jump on it, hopes rise. No one has seen the full offer.

Anyone with a brain knows the devil will be in the details, it always is with Bettman.

Media types start to report that deal isn't as good as it first seemed.

Media types who were hopeful no predicting players won't like it.

Agents speak out against offer.

Fehr says it is not good enough.

Players speak out against offer...

What's next?

Media reports that season is now in serious jeopardy?

Fans (via Twitter) begin to turn on players.

Bettman says it was fair offer, the best offer available. Take it or leave it?

Fehr rejects offer.

Media predicts doom and gloom.

Talks break off.

Season lost? Or last minute deal?

It is all scripted. Bettman is cunning, if a bit obnoxious.

I just don't trust that cunning stunt at all, I'm definitely leaning toward it all being snake oil to deflect public opinion while the league attempts to outlast the PA during a long winter. If I'm in the owner's war room there is every reason to believe the PA will fold eventually... Just like last time. Personally if that's the case, I'm hoping the stubborn and fighting nature of hockey players holds out and gets them through the year to the point where the owners are looking at a second year out. That's when I think the stuffing will come out of the turkey. Surely only a fool is gonna believe that the league is going to survive an apocalypse.

BurningBeard wrote: I guess it's designed to make themselves look good to the fans, but honestly, why would the players want to play 82 games at this point?

The players want to play an 82 game schedule because then they get their full salary.

There will be no way to get all the games in past that point so they start losing real dollars if a new CBA is not in place by then.

You don't think a few of them take issue with playing that compacted schedule? Take the pay cut to play less, especially if it means a better CBA agreement? At least, maybe that's the way Fehr pitches it... I guess the question is which side benefits more from a full 82 game season.

Perhaps some of the older guys with more money then dirt, but the vast, vast, majority would want their whole contract.

Keep in mind the additional games would mostly replace practice days, and pre-season games.

Last edited by Potatoe1 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Potatoe1 wrote:Not only would we have major cap problems starting next summer but we would be absolutely screwed by the rules concerning Lu's contract.

I think the proposed new rule on long-term contracts is a mechanism to make future extended-term deals more onerous and less appealing.

I think the PA will give in a bit on HRR (not 50/50 right away), but they definitely do not want caps on contract length.

To be honest, I don't think teams want 5 or 6 year contract limits, and as I stated before, it will end up driving up the annual salary, and cap hit, that will result in a larger pool of significantly overpaid players, which is a problem the NHL will want to avoid.

The NHL started off with demanding virtually everything. Now they're relenting bit by bit, and we're hearing about more creative details that seem like possible solutions in a future deal.

The PA would have fought against the punishment of long-term contracts, but it sounds a lot better when the alternative is caps on contract length.

I think what we'll see happen is that the PA will be willing to start next year at 52-53% HRR, and be down to 50/50 by the third year, and there will be no caps on contracts, but deals signed beyond a certain time, say 5-7 years, will count against the team's cap even if the player retires. There will likely be other mechanism that will make long-term and front-loading deals more difficult.

As for Luongo's contract, I think current deals will end up being grandfathered, and if that's not the case the next CBA may have a solution.

Well, if we get to keep 1-2 million on luongo's deal and take the risk of having a cap hit if he retires early then I want a shit load in a return for him Mr. BB. Careful what you ask for. I mean he wants to trade for him for shit and now he wants all these changes to lower his risk even further.

And maybe it only applies for those that signed contracts where early retirement could not negate the cap like Pronger and does not include Luongo in any event.

I honestly could care less how the pie is sliced up. They're all filthy rich to me and hearing the figure they toss around makes me even more pissed off. It sounds like a federal budget FFS. I like the players and am dialed into all the stats and predictions as much as the next guy but for lifetime fans like me, they're more or less interchangeable. As long as they're the best in the world, if they're wearing canucks colours I'm cheering for them.I hate them equally because they're both to blame for screwing up my winter sofa season. Now what!?! Baseball? Holy yawn fest....CFL? Hahaha, good one. So NFL and its step, step tackle party? BBBOOOORRRRRRRIIIINNNNNGGGGGG!

I want my damn hockey! i hope someone, ANYONE of them bends over fast and takes it so I can get my game back on the idiot box!!